Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

harmful.cat-v.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 132 posts

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#21

Post by microtonal »

Vivtek wrote: post #12
sp332 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I've heard that in Britain, IP is considered an inherent right just like personal property. If I own the result of my own physical labor, why wouldn't I own the result of intellectual labor as well?

Because if you physically make something and it's taken from you, you no longer have it. Information can't be taken from you - granted, a medium on which it's stored could be, but again, that would be a physical, not an intellectual loss. You can't be deprived of the knowledge that allowed you to create the item in the first place. Unless, of course, somebody else is granted the intellectual property rights to it.

The artifacts produced from intellectual labor can often not be taken from an individual, but through copying potential income can. 'Intellectual property' is a concept invented by people to protect themselves against such loss of income.

Currently, most people who care cling to two extremes: one group sees intellectual property as physical property, and think 'theft' should be punished as physical property theft. The other group thinks that 'intellectual property' is imaginary, because the cost of copying is near-zero and copying does not take away information from the original owner.

Obviously, the first extreme is completely unacceptable. Suppose (for the sake of the argument) that someone invented a copier tomorrow that could copy any physical object. That would be a tremendous win for humanity. However, the 'intellectual property'-crowd would come in and insist that people pay nearly the same price for the copy as the original (as happens today with books, movies, and music). On the other hand, there should be some financial incentive to produce intellectual artifacts.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#22

Post by Jach »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #13
Vivtek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you physically make something and it's taken from you, you no longer have it. Information can't be taken from you - granted, a medium on which it's stored could be, but again, that would be a physical, not an intellectual loss. You can't be deprived of the knowledge that allowed you to create the item in the first place. Unless, of course, somebody else is granted the intellectual property rights to it.

But that's not quite the argument. If I compose a poem or a play, and contract with a publisher to publish said poem and pay me a portion of the proceeds (or contract with a theater company to perform the play, and similarly pay me a portion of the proceeds), and some third party takes the poem/play and publishes/performs it without paying me, I have, in fact, been deprived of something, i.e., income. And, if my read…

Interesting you chose the word 'deprived' instead of the more typical 'stole'. I think it's hard to justify stealing when only a copy was copied. So then 'deprived of income' in the sense of withheld income. Who is doing the withholding, and why do you think you're entitled to what they're withholding? And how much? (While the third party didn't have to write your work, they nevertheless would have to do a lot of work themselves to make a profit from it.)

Here's an economic quote but I don't remember the source: "Profit is not determined by how much value you create, it is determined by how much of that value you can capture." Edit: Ah, looks like it's an Eliezer quote not from an economics text.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#23

Post by nextparadigms »

I've seen many people say that if RIAA and MPAA keep trying to introduce new censorship laws like that, eventually the "camel's back will break", and people will demand a total overhaul of the copyright system, or perhaps completely eliminate it.

I tend to agree. The more they will push this, the more people will rise up and speak against it, and many people will start questioning if copyright should even exist in the first place. Through their aggressiveness on this issue, they will put the spotlight on it, and I don't think it will end up being in their favor.

I believe the people will eventually win this one, even if in the mean time they manage to introduce one or two more Internet censorship laws.

I like this TED video on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#24

Post by jvandonsel »

The quote by John Perry Barlow:

"Royalties are not how most writers or musicians make their living. Musicians by and large make a living with a relationship with an audience that is economically harnessed through performance and ticket sales."

leaves a lot to be desired. OK, so how do writers make their living? By giving live readings? I think not.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#25

Post by michael_dorfman »

slowpoke wrote: post #16
michael_dorfman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work, and can contract (exclusively, for a period of time) with a publisher for the distribution of said work. Put another way: you may (or may not) be old enough to remember when an American paperback company, Ace books, produced and sold paperback copies of Tolkien's "Lord…

>if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work Then please elaborate why we should accept said premise. You just state it like it's an universal law of the universe. It isn't. No artisan (or actually, no one at all) is entitled to a successful business modell. And by the way, the "problem" aren't the people who are unwilling to pay for anything (whic…

I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm not even stating that I agree with the premise. I'm just pointing out that it is an unstated assumption in much of the discussion surrounding IP.

In other words, the account given of the "ethical problems of intellectual property" above is dependent upon one rejecting that premise, and that contrarily, those that accept the premise will find the "ethical objections" to be unpersuasive.

If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books, then indeed no harm has been done. If, on the other hand, you accept the premise I elaborated (and which Tolkien explicitly appealed to, in a famous statement), the harm is evident.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#26

Post by michael_dorfman »

Jach wrote: post #22
michael_dorfman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not quite the argument. If I compose a poem or a play, and contract with a publisher to publish said poem and pay me a portion of the proceeds (or contract with a theater company to perform the play, and similarly pay me a portion of the proceeds), and some third party takes the poem/play and publishes/performs it without paying me, I have, in fact, been deprived of something, i.e., income. And, if my read…

Interesting you chose the word 'deprived' instead of the more typical 'stole'. I think it's hard to justify stealing when only a copy was copied. So then 'deprived of income' in the sense of withheld income. Who is doing the withholding, and why do you think you're entitled to what they're withholding? And how much? (While the third party didn't have to write your work, they nevertheless would have to do a lot of wor…

In the example I offered, the economics are no mystery, but if it helps you to put numbers in the picture, let's go for it.

Suppose I write a book of sonnets. I negotiate with a publisher whereby he has the exclusive right to print, distribute, and sell said book of sonnets for a period of five years, and I will be paid $1 per copy sold. The book proves popular, and a pirate publisher produces, distributes, and sells an identical edition, but fails to pay me the $1 per copy sold.

In this case, I am being deprived of the income (by the pirate publisher) to the tune of $1 per copy that they have sold during the period in question.

Clear?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#27

Post by SigmundA »

hxa7241 wrote: post #17
michael_dorfman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these are ethical problems if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work, and can contract (exclusively, for a period of time) with a publisher for the distribution of said work. Put another way: you may (or may not) be old enough to remember when an American paperback company, Ace books, produced and sold paperback copies of Tolkien's "Lord…

> if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work That is not the premise, that is the matter in question. If it is simply assumed as the answer, nothing has been said. As to the idea of harm here, it is not in the actions or materials themselves. It depends on assuming the particular law is the baseline, and then saying without that the person would b…

Ethically it simply comes down to giving credit where credit is due.

If you discuss a new idea that you have spent time formulating with a co-worker that is good for the company and the co-worker presents this idea to your common boss as their own and receive a promotion for it, is this ethically wrong?

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#28

Post by seabee »

jvandonsel wrote: post #24

The quote by John Perry Barlow: "Royalties are not how most writers or musicians make their living. Musicians by and large make a living with a relationship with an audience that is economically harnessed through performance and ticket sales." leaves a lot to be desired. OK, so how do writers make their living? By giving live readings? I think not.

> OK, so how do writers make their living?

The glib answer is "most don't", and indeed you will find a lot of writers who have other jobs. Journalists are writers, and the relationship there is fairly clear. PR and marketing materials need writing too.

In short, you make your living by a company renting or commissioning your talents. Musicians had only one other option before recorded music - performing - and even then that wasn't always feasible. Think of classical music and its performance demands.

You joke about live readings, but the ancient poets did just that. They also complained of poverty. People really do suffer for their art.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#29

Post by adimitrov »

gvb wrote: post #4

What I consider to be intellectual property is between my ears - it is my intellect and my property. I have an arrangement with my employer to rent my intellect for nominally 8 hours per day. What that arrangement produces are artifacts (ink on paper, magnetic domains on disk drives, charge on floating gates) of my intellect. My employer owns those artifacts, but not the intellect that created them. Companies can tal…

That's a very interesting, and strong way to view it — however, I feel like this is still not going to solve the main issue:

Yes, my intellect is my property, and it's going to stay that way. But my intellect needs to feed on — artifacts. If I see something I find interesting, I want to see how it's done. Not for the purpose of copying it, and appropriating it, but for the purpose of learning from it; feeding my intellect is the way I can keep it alive. I cannot generate new, novel artifacts, without old ones to feed my curiosity, and my ability.

Here's the thing: the companies want to own those artifacts, and I want to freely peruse them. It would be one thing to just be able to rent them from companies, but in the case of closed source, that is not possible. Intellectual artifacts become inaccessible.

Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron

#30

Post by Jach »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #26
Jach wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you chose the word 'deprived' instead of the more typical 'stole'. I think it's hard to justify stealing when only a copy was copied. So then 'deprived of income' in the sense of withheld income. Who is doing the withholding, and why do you think you're entitled to what they're withholding? And how much? (While the third party didn't have to write your work, they nevertheless would have to do a lot of wor…

In the example I offered, the economics are no mystery, but if it helps you to put numbers in the picture, let's go for it. Suppose I write a book of sonnets. I negotiate with a publisher whereby he has the exclusive right to print, distribute, and sell said book of sonnets for a period of five years, and I will be paid $1 per copy sold. The book proves popular, and a pirate publisher produces, distributes, and sells…

Not really. Why is it $1? Suppose you make a contract with one publisher who will pay you $1 per copy sold and also negotiate with a different publisher who will pay you $2 per copy sold. How much are you deprived then, $1.50? $2? You're assuming that every copy the pirate sold could have been sold by your current publisher(s) but wasn't.
Post reply on HN